Passersby rush to help injured cyclist in Fulwell

London Ambulance Service was called after the collision between the cyclist and a car in South Road at the junction with Hampton Road at about 8.30am.

The man, believed to be in his 30s, was taken to West Middlesex Hospital.

The ambulance service said he was not taken as a priority.

Stephanie Blake saw the accident and said the bike looked mangled and passersby stopped to help the injured man.

There have been six cycling fatalities on London’s roads in the past two weeks, bringing the capital’s total cycling deaths to 14 so far this year - the same figure for the whole of 2012.

The deaths moved road safety campaigners to call on the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, to take urgent action to make roads safer.

The latest fatality came as Metropolitan Police traffic officers gave road safety advice to cyclist and lorry drivers in central London.

Assistant Commissioner Simon Byrne said all 2,500 officers from Traffic and Safer Transport Commands were being deployed to speak to all road users.

He said: “Our activity will be targeted at all road users, during morning and evening rush hours, who are using our roads dangerously, without consideration or care, to reinforce the point that we all have a duty to be safe on our roads.

“Each and every death is a needless tragedy, the human cost of which should never be forgotten.”

Comments

mumto1plus2
12:08pm Tue 19 Nov 13

I am all for better road safety but do wish the same attention being paid to cyclists at the moment was also afforded pedestrians. After all, in 2012, 69 pedestrians were killed and 1,054 seriously injured (14 cyclists died and 657 seriously injured). Pedestrian deaths and injuries are far higher.

I am all for better road safety but do wish the same attention being paid to cyclists at the moment was also afforded pedestrians. After all, in 2012, 69 pedestrians were killed and 1,054 seriously injured (14 cyclists died and 657 seriously injured). Pedestrian deaths and injuries are far higher.mumto1plus2

I am all for better road safety but do wish the same attention being paid to cyclists at the moment was also afforded pedestrians. After all, in 2012, 69 pedestrians were killed and 1,054 seriously injured (14 cyclists died and 657 seriously injured). Pedestrian deaths and injuries are far higher.

Score: 3

bandit63
12:52pm Tue 19 Nov 13

Each type of road user needs to have an appreciation of the issues facing other groups. The lack of visibility for lorry and bus drivers, cyclists trying to undertake vehicles clearly making a left hand turn, cyclists obeying the highway code (not jumping lights, failing to stop at crossings etc.), car drivers driving too close to cyclists, packs of cyclists spreading out across the road, drivers not looking properly for motorcyclists, motorcyclists taking trying to get through non existent gaps, appreciation that all vehicles have blind spots and etc etc etc

Basically, ALL road users need to be considerate of others, obey traffic laws and not be so arrogant that they are in the right. A dream I know, but would actually solve a fair amount of the problem. Common sense should prevail

As an aside, has anyone noticed the increased reporting in the press of indicents involving cyclists? I may be cynical, but I'm detecting pressure groups / politicans pushing this agenda

Each type of road user needs to have an appreciation of the issues facing other groups. The lack of visibility for lorry and bus drivers, cyclists trying to undertake vehicles clearly making a left hand turn, cyclists obeying the highway code (not jumping lights, failing to stop at crossings etc.), car drivers driving too close to cyclists, packs of cyclists spreading out across the road, drivers not looking properly for motorcyclists, motorcyclists taking trying to get through non existent gaps, appreciation that all vehicles have blind spots and etc etc etc
Basically, ALL road users need to be considerate of others, obey traffic laws and not be so arrogant that they are in the right. A dream I know, but would actually solve a fair amount of the problem. Common sense should prevail
As an aside, has anyone noticed the increased reporting in the press of indicents involving cyclists? I may be cynical, but I'm detecting pressure groups / politicans pushing this agendabandit63

Each type of road user needs to have an appreciation of the issues facing other groups. The lack of visibility for lorry and bus drivers, cyclists trying to undertake vehicles clearly making a left hand turn, cyclists obeying the highway code (not jumping lights, failing to stop at crossings etc.), car drivers driving too close to cyclists, packs of cyclists spreading out across the road, drivers not looking properly for motorcyclists, motorcyclists taking trying to get through non existent gaps, appreciation that all vehicles have blind spots and etc etc etc

Basically, ALL road users need to be considerate of others, obey traffic laws and not be so arrogant that they are in the right. A dream I know, but would actually solve a fair amount of the problem. Common sense should prevail

As an aside, has anyone noticed the increased reporting in the press of indicents involving cyclists? I may be cynical, but I'm detecting pressure groups / politicans pushing this agenda

Score: 5

archibaldthegrim
12:58pm Tue 19 Nov 13

It is sad for the families of those who have died in cycle accidents. It is not surprising, however, that these accidents occur and i note the Police are targeting "all road Users" From my own perspective cycle accidents are inevitable when cyclists do not follow the rules of the road. We see every day cyclists shooting red lights, failing to have lights on their bikes as required by law, chatting on the 'phone, not wearing high viz clothing, cycling on the wrong side of the road. It seems that several deaths have occurred involving HGVs or large vehicles turning left yet there is a specific warning in the Highway code about this (Rules for cyclists para 72 & 73). So.. whilst feeling very sad for the cyclists who have died, perhaps their deaths might not have happened had they been aware of the dangers.
Motor vehicle drivers also have to be more cautious - treating every cyclist as a learner is not a bad approach to take.

It is sad for the families of those who have died in cycle accidents. It is not surprising, however, that these accidents occur and i note the Police are targeting "all road Users" From my own perspective cycle accidents are inevitable when cyclists do not follow the rules of the road. We see every day cyclists shooting red lights, failing to have lights on their bikes as required by law, chatting on the 'phone, not wearing high viz clothing, cycling on the wrong side of the road. It seems that several deaths have occurred involving HGVs or large vehicles turning left yet there is a specific warning in the Highway code about this (Rules for cyclists para 72 & 73). So.. whilst feeling very sad for the cyclists who have died, perhaps their deaths might not have happened had they been aware of the dangers.
Motor vehicle drivers also have to be more cautious - treating every cyclist as a learner is not a bad approach to take.archibaldthegrim

It is sad for the families of those who have died in cycle accidents. It is not surprising, however, that these accidents occur and i note the Police are targeting "all road Users" From my own perspective cycle accidents are inevitable when cyclists do not follow the rules of the road. We see every day cyclists shooting red lights, failing to have lights on their bikes as required by law, chatting on the 'phone, not wearing high viz clothing, cycling on the wrong side of the road. It seems that several deaths have occurred involving HGVs or large vehicles turning left yet there is a specific warning in the Highway code about this (Rules for cyclists para 72 & 73). So.. whilst feeling very sad for the cyclists who have died, perhaps their deaths might not have happened had they been aware of the dangers.
Motor vehicle drivers also have to be more cautious - treating every cyclist as a learner is not a bad approach to take.

Score: 2

Twickenham resident
1:21pm Tue 19 Nov 13

I wonder how long it will be before the family of a dead cyclist sues Boris Johnson for telling us all to get on our bikes as cycling is safe?

I was once a keen cyclist but I would never venture on London's roads again.
They are just not safe. SOLID segregated cycle lanes are the only way to make the roads safer for everyone and if TFL go down this line, then the many different types of cyclist need to be more tolerant of each other. There is no place on London's roads for the serious speed cyclists and they should confine weaving in and out to proper off road circuit tracks (and this doesn't include Richmond Park).

ALL cyclists should have public liability insurance and if they have dependents, life insurance too.

It may be that there is more reporting of cyclist injuries and deaths and that the figures are no worse or less than years ago. But if the current reporting is reflecting an increase, when people choose to get on their bikes and head out onto the streets, they should consider it may very well be the last time they do so......

I wonder how long it will be before the family of a dead cyclist sues Boris Johnson for telling us all to get on our bikes as cycling is safe?
I was once a keen cyclist but I would never venture on London's roads again.
They are just not safe. SOLID segregated cycle lanes are the only way to make the roads safer for everyone and if TFL go down this line, then the many different types of cyclist need to be more tolerant of each other. There is no place on London's roads for the serious speed cyclists and they should confine weaving in and out to proper off road circuit tracks (and this doesn't include Richmond Park).
ALL cyclists should have public liability insurance and if they have dependents, life insurance too.
It may be that there is more reporting of cyclist injuries and deaths and that the figures are no worse or less than years ago. But if the current reporting is reflecting an increase, when people choose to get on their bikes and head out onto the streets, they should consider it may very well be the last time they do so......Twickenham resident

I wonder how long it will be before the family of a dead cyclist sues Boris Johnson for telling us all to get on our bikes as cycling is safe?

I was once a keen cyclist but I would never venture on London's roads again.
They are just not safe. SOLID segregated cycle lanes are the only way to make the roads safer for everyone and if TFL go down this line, then the many different types of cyclist need to be more tolerant of each other. There is no place on London's roads for the serious speed cyclists and they should confine weaving in and out to proper off road circuit tracks (and this doesn't include Richmond Park).

ALL cyclists should have public liability insurance and if they have dependents, life insurance too.

It may be that there is more reporting of cyclist injuries and deaths and that the figures are no worse or less than years ago. But if the current reporting is reflecting an increase, when people choose to get on their bikes and head out onto the streets, they should consider it may very well be the last time they do so......

Score: 7

lucullus
5:36pm Tue 19 Nov 13

Briefly, the issue of road deaths is rapidly broadening into questioning why there are so many pedestrians injured, as well. Many campaigners are actively linking the deaths and injuries in both groups to the way our built environment has been adapted more and more for speedy vehicle movement, rather than safe and pleasant movement for cyclists and pedestrians.

Briefly, the issue of road deaths is rapidly broadening into questioning why there are so many pedestrians injured, as well. Many campaigners are actively linking the deaths and injuries in both groups to the way our built environment has been adapted more and more for speedy vehicle movement, rather than safe and pleasant movement for cyclists and pedestrians.lucullus

Briefly, the issue of road deaths is rapidly broadening into questioning why there are so many pedestrians injured, as well. Many campaigners are actively linking the deaths and injuries in both groups to the way our built environment has been adapted more and more for speedy vehicle movement, rather than safe and pleasant movement for cyclists and pedestrians.

Score: 3

bandit63
12:34pm Wed 20 Nov 13

Just because campaigners are linking the "built up environment" to increase deaths and injuries, doesn't mean that is the sole reason . Whilst the number may be on the increase, is the rate on the increase? (our population is getting bigger).
Also, there are many other factors like the general lack of responsibility for one's own safety (e.g. stepping straight out onto a crossing without thinking that the car 2 foot from the crossing will not have a cat in hells chance of stopping / gassing on the phone instead of watching what you are doing), lack of common sense (e.g. the light is red, so funnily enough, other road users have the right of way, but I'll still shoot the red light on my bike causing cars to do sudden stops and cause accidents), lack of appreciation of other road users (e.g. I'll overtake a cyclist with an inch between him/ her and my wing mirror) etc. Education of all road users, enforcement against all types of road users when they are stupid and where feasible, chnaging the environment to protect vulnerable road / street users without adversely affecting others, is the way to go. Not just one part. All road user groups need to work together

Just because campaigners are linking the "built up environment" to increase deaths and injuries, doesn't mean that is the sole reason . Whilst the number may be on the increase, is the rate on the increase? (our population is getting bigger).
Also, there are many other factors like the general lack of responsibility for one's own safety (e.g. stepping straight out onto a crossing without thinking that the car 2 foot from the crossing will not have a cat in hells chance of stopping / gassing on the phone instead of watching what you are doing), lack of common sense (e.g. the light is red, so funnily enough, other road users have the right of way, but I'll still shoot the red light on my bike causing cars to do sudden stops and cause accidents), lack of appreciation of other road users (e.g. I'll overtake a cyclist with an inch between him/ her and my wing mirror) etc. Education of all road users, enforcement against all types of road users when they are stupid and where feasible, chnaging the environment to protect vulnerable road / street users without adversely affecting others, is the way to go. Not just one part. All road user groups need to work togetherbandit63

Just because campaigners are linking the "built up environment" to increase deaths and injuries, doesn't mean that is the sole reason . Whilst the number may be on the increase, is the rate on the increase? (our population is getting bigger).
Also, there are many other factors like the general lack of responsibility for one's own safety (e.g. stepping straight out onto a crossing without thinking that the car 2 foot from the crossing will not have a cat in hells chance of stopping / gassing on the phone instead of watching what you are doing), lack of common sense (e.g. the light is red, so funnily enough, other road users have the right of way, but I'll still shoot the red light on my bike causing cars to do sudden stops and cause accidents), lack of appreciation of other road users (e.g. I'll overtake a cyclist with an inch between him/ her and my wing mirror) etc. Education of all road users, enforcement against all types of road users when they are stupid and where feasible, chnaging the environment to protect vulnerable road / street users without adversely affecting others, is the way to go. Not just one part. All road user groups need to work together

Score: 5

tim_lennon
2:41pm Wed 20 Nov 13

bandit63 wrote…

Just because campaigners are linking the "built up environment" to increase deaths and injuries, doesn't mean that is the sole reason . Whilst the number may be on the increase, is the rate on the increase? (our population is getting bigger).
Also, there are many other factors like the general lack of responsibility for one's own safety (e.g. stepping straight out onto a crossing without thinking that the car 2 foot from the crossing will not have a cat in hells chance of stopping / gassing on the phone instead of watching what you are doing), lack of common sense (e.g. the light is red, so funnily enough, other road users have the right of way, but I'll still shoot the red light on my bike causing cars to do sudden stops and cause accidents), lack of appreciation of other road users (e.g. I'll overtake a cyclist with an inch between him/ her and my wing mirror) etc. Education of all road users, enforcement against all types of road users when they are stupid and where feasible, chnaging the environment to protect vulnerable road / street users without adversely affecting others, is the way to go. Not just one part. All road user groups need to work together

I (and many others) would agree that all road users need to take care, and that the solution has a number of different strands. However the biggest one - making the urban environment safer for pedestrians and cyclists, and more tolerant of their mistakes - is the hardest one to get done.

Why 'more tolerant of their mistakes'? Because cars and HGVs are generally not the victims when they make a mistake, but when cyclists and pedestrians make a mistake - and everyone fouls up every now and again - the outcome is much more likely to be very unpleasant.

To answer your other question, yes, the rate of KSIs for cycling is on the increase, in terms of incidents per distance travelled.

[quote][p][bold]bandit63[/bold] wrote:
Just because campaigners are linking the "built up environment" to increase deaths and injuries, doesn't mean that is the sole reason . Whilst the number may be on the increase, is the rate on the increase? (our population is getting bigger).
Also, there are many other factors like the general lack of responsibility for one's own safety (e.g. stepping straight out onto a crossing without thinking that the car 2 foot from the crossing will not have a cat in hells chance of stopping / gassing on the phone instead of watching what you are doing), lack of common sense (e.g. the light is red, so funnily enough, other road users have the right of way, but I'll still shoot the red light on my bike causing cars to do sudden stops and cause accidents), lack of appreciation of other road users (e.g. I'll overtake a cyclist with an inch between him/ her and my wing mirror) etc. Education of all road users, enforcement against all types of road users when they are stupid and where feasible, chnaging the environment to protect vulnerable road / street users without adversely affecting others, is the way to go. Not just one part. All road user groups need to work together[/p][/quote]I (and many others) would agree that all road users need to take care, and that the solution has a number of different strands. However the biggest one - making the urban environment safer for pedestrians and cyclists, and more tolerant of their mistakes - is the hardest one to get done.
Why 'more tolerant of their mistakes'? Because cars and HGVs are generally not the victims when they make a mistake, but when cyclists and pedestrians make a mistake - and everyone fouls up every now and again - the outcome is much more likely to be very unpleasant.
To answer your other question, yes, the rate of KSIs for cycling is on the increase, in terms of incidents per distance travelled.tim_lennon

bandit63 wrote…

Just because campaigners are linking the "built up environment" to increase deaths and injuries, doesn't mean that is the sole reason . Whilst the number may be on the increase, is the rate on the increase? (our population is getting bigger).
Also, there are many other factors like the general lack of responsibility for one's own safety (e.g. stepping straight out onto a crossing without thinking that the car 2 foot from the crossing will not have a cat in hells chance of stopping / gassing on the phone instead of watching what you are doing), lack of common sense (e.g. the light is red, so funnily enough, other road users have the right of way, but I'll still shoot the red light on my bike causing cars to do sudden stops and cause accidents), lack of appreciation of other road users (e.g. I'll overtake a cyclist with an inch between him/ her and my wing mirror) etc. Education of all road users, enforcement against all types of road users when they are stupid and where feasible, chnaging the environment to protect vulnerable road / street users without adversely affecting others, is the way to go. Not just one part. All road user groups need to work together

I (and many others) would agree that all road users need to take care, and that the solution has a number of different strands. However the biggest one - making the urban environment safer for pedestrians and cyclists, and more tolerant of their mistakes - is the hardest one to get done.

Why 'more tolerant of their mistakes'? Because cars and HGVs are generally not the victims when they make a mistake, but when cyclists and pedestrians make a mistake - and everyone fouls up every now and again - the outcome is much more likely to be very unpleasant.

To answer your other question, yes, the rate of KSIs for cycling is on the increase, in terms of incidents per distance travelled.

Score: 1

bandit63
10:28am Thu 21 Nov 13

The problem is that even when a cyclist or a pedestrian is 100% in the wrong, the driver is automatically assumed to be the one that caused the accident. The driver then has quite a job to prove that they weren't. Being more tolerant of a cyclists mistake vs. that of a car driver is not the way to go. The same tolerance should be applied to all users, otherwise certain groups think the have more right to be on the road than others. Each group should be treated the same if they make a mistake / act like a numpty.

Yes - drivers are unlikley to be physically injured in incidents with cyclists / pedestrians but they too will carry scars etc. there are consequences for every party in an incident.

I say again - you can't just look at things in isolation. Where it's feasible, then seperate road users; but if that speration then breeds arrognace / invincibility attitude then it's not the right thing to do.

My own very unsceintific "study" on how I drive / ride on my motorbike / cycle affects the behaviour of other drivers may be interesting to note (or maybe not!!). If I use the road and am "silly", then other users get wound up and I find myself at more risk. If I'm tolerant and use my common sense, then this seems to be reflected in the behaviour of most other users around me. Either way, my journey takes the same amount of time normally......

The problem is that even when a cyclist or a pedestrian is 100% in the wrong, the driver is automatically assumed to be the one that caused the accident. The driver then has quite a job to prove that they weren't. Being more tolerant of a cyclists mistake vs. that of a car driver is not the way to go. The same tolerance should be applied to all users, otherwise certain groups think the have more right to be on the road than others. Each group should be treated the same if they make a mistake / act like a numpty.
Yes - drivers are unlikley to be physically injured in incidents with cyclists / pedestrians but they too will carry scars etc. there are consequences for every party in an incident.
I say again - you can't just look at things in isolation. Where it's feasible, then seperate road users; but if that speration then breeds arrognace / invincibility attitude then it's not the right thing to do.
My own very unsceintific "study" on how I drive / ride on my motorbike / cycle affects the behaviour of other drivers may be interesting to note (or maybe not!!). If I use the road and am "silly", then other users get wound up and I find myself at more risk. If I'm tolerant and use my common sense, then this seems to be reflected in the behaviour of most other users around me. Either way, my journey takes the same amount of time normally......bandit63

The problem is that even when a cyclist or a pedestrian is 100% in the wrong, the driver is automatically assumed to be the one that caused the accident. The driver then has quite a job to prove that they weren't. Being more tolerant of a cyclists mistake vs. that of a car driver is not the way to go. The same tolerance should be applied to all users, otherwise certain groups think the have more right to be on the road than others. Each group should be treated the same if they make a mistake / act like a numpty.

Yes - drivers are unlikley to be physically injured in incidents with cyclists / pedestrians but they too will carry scars etc. there are consequences for every party in an incident.

I say again - you can't just look at things in isolation. Where it's feasible, then seperate road users; but if that speration then breeds arrognace / invincibility attitude then it's not the right thing to do.

My own very unsceintific "study" on how I drive / ride on my motorbike / cycle affects the behaviour of other drivers may be interesting to note (or maybe not!!). If I use the road and am "silly", then other users get wound up and I find myself at more risk. If I'm tolerant and use my common sense, then this seems to be reflected in the behaviour of most other users around me. Either way, my journey takes the same amount of time normally......

Score: 3

Concerned_Resident
11:03pm Thu 21 Nov 13

The fact that you are more vulnerable should mean that you take that extra bit of care? If I walk into a herd of lions without a gun, I am going to expect to come off worse because they have teeth and claws and all I have are my finger nails and a good football leg. Similarly, if I walk/cycle out into the road without looking, I am going to expect to come off worse against something that weighs upwards of 1.5t.

This whole blame (or no blame in some cases) culture we have nowadays is just plain weird. If I mess up, I expect to have to deal with the consequences. Why should this same rule not apply to *all* road users be they pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, HGV drivers and so on? Yes, the cost of the mistake of others is not equal, but are things equal when the driver's automatically blamed anyway? No.

From my own point of view, certainly, the biggest irritation for car drivers is traffic. Interestingly, I expect this is the same for cyclists because it can hold them up just as much too. This leads to bikes weaving in and out of the cars which is something that's immensely frustrating for motorists as we never know which way to look for someone who has come barrelling up from any old direction. An example of what I see as a win/win is schemes like the one on the London Road bridge in Twickenham. It is a key cause of traffic because cars have to wait until they pass the bus stop to go and turn left into Twickenham Road. Cars therefore cut into a space they perceive as being underused which annoys the cyclists because they want this space to themselves. But sharing this space will ease the traffic and make the environment better for everyone, including cyclists, surely?? Even make this stretch 20mph so that all traffic can realistically move at the same speed, meaning overtaking shouldn't be necessary by any party.

It is my firm belief that we *all* need to share space more considerately, not segregate and set battles off against the various groups, each of whom is extremely passionate about their cause.

The fact that you are more vulnerable should mean that you take that extra bit of care? If I walk into a herd of lions without a gun, I am going to expect to come off worse because they have teeth and claws and all I have are my finger nails and a good football leg. Similarly, if I walk/cycle out into the road without looking, I am going to expect to come off worse against something that weighs upwards of 1.5t.
This whole blame (or no blame in some cases) culture we have nowadays is just plain weird. If I mess up, I expect to have to deal with the consequences. Why should this same rule not apply to *all* road users be they pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, HGV drivers and so on? Yes, the cost of the mistake of others is not equal, but are things equal when the driver's automatically blamed anyway? No.
From my own point of view, certainly, the biggest irritation for car drivers is traffic. Interestingly, I expect this is the same for cyclists because it can hold them up just as much too. This leads to bikes weaving in and out of the cars which is something that's immensely frustrating for motorists as we never know which way to look for someone who has come barrelling up from any old direction. An example of what I see as a win/win is schemes like the one on the London Road bridge in Twickenham. It is a key cause of traffic because cars have to wait until they pass the bus stop to go and turn left into Twickenham Road. Cars therefore cut into a space they perceive as being underused which annoys the cyclists because they want this space to themselves. But sharing this space will ease the traffic and make the environment better for everyone, including cyclists, surely?? Even make this stretch 20mph so that all traffic can realistically move at the same speed, meaning overtaking shouldn't be necessary by any party.
It is my firm belief that we *all* need to share space more considerately, not segregate and set battles off against the various groups, each of whom is extremely passionate about their cause.Concerned_Resident

The fact that you are more vulnerable should mean that you take that extra bit of care? If I walk into a herd of lions without a gun, I am going to expect to come off worse because they have teeth and claws and all I have are my finger nails and a good football leg. Similarly, if I walk/cycle out into the road without looking, I am going to expect to come off worse against something that weighs upwards of 1.5t.

This whole blame (or no blame in some cases) culture we have nowadays is just plain weird. If I mess up, I expect to have to deal with the consequences. Why should this same rule not apply to *all* road users be they pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, HGV drivers and so on? Yes, the cost of the mistake of others is not equal, but are things equal when the driver's automatically blamed anyway? No.

From my own point of view, certainly, the biggest irritation for car drivers is traffic. Interestingly, I expect this is the same for cyclists because it can hold them up just as much too. This leads to bikes weaving in and out of the cars which is something that's immensely frustrating for motorists as we never know which way to look for someone who has come barrelling up from any old direction. An example of what I see as a win/win is schemes like the one on the London Road bridge in Twickenham. It is a key cause of traffic because cars have to wait until they pass the bus stop to go and turn left into Twickenham Road. Cars therefore cut into a space they perceive as being underused which annoys the cyclists because they want this space to themselves. But sharing this space will ease the traffic and make the environment better for everyone, including cyclists, surely?? Even make this stretch 20mph so that all traffic can realistically move at the same speed, meaning overtaking shouldn't be necessary by any party.

It is my firm belief that we *all* need to share space more considerately, not segregate and set battles off against the various groups, each of whom is extremely passionate about their cause.

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standards Organisation's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about the editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here